Reliability, Validity and Trustworthiness

Reliability and validity are important standards often used in quantitative research, and trustworthiness is a common standard in qualitative research (Cohen et al., 2011). Reliability measures the extent to which the research is repeatable, using the same methods and procedures. This can be achieved by generating consistent findings with the same of different participants at a different time (Cohen et al., 2011). Research is also reliable if two or more people interpret data in the same way using the same procedures. This was the case when both my research colleague and I found the same themes in the qualitative data. Since data were collected from 41 colleges it was possible to compare prevalence rates, and although prevalence rates inevitably varied amongst colleges, the variation in prevalence rates was less amongst those colleges with higher sample sizes. However, suggesting linearity based on just the sample size and the prevalence rate is naïve as cyberbullying is a complex behavioural phenomenon and many other factors could affect the prevalence rate for each college.

The procedures used for the research design, collecting data and analysing data were explicit and transparent. This increased the reliability of the research, as it is easier for the study to be repeated. If the research was to be repeated, it should be conducted, including taking place in March, as in this study to ensure consistency. In the discussion chapter, the sample in this research was fairly representative of

150

the population given the data available to make this assessment. The sample was relatively large and covered a wide geographical area; with 5,690 questionnaire respondents spread over 41 colleges in England.

Validity refers to the extent to which the research actually measured what it set out to measure, and includes the research design, data collection methods and data analysis (Bryman, 2008; Bell, 2010). Two or more methods of data collection can show validity through consistency of findings. The mixed methods approach in this research provided triangulation in order to answer the research questions and was discussed in light of the previous research literature. Internal validity concerns the rigour in the research design and in constructing measurements. The questionnaire was piloted and consideration was given to the measurement of cyberbullying in relation to repetition: participants were asked how many times they were cyberbullied or cyberbullied others so distinction could be drawn between those who were cyberbullied just once and those who were cyberbullied more often. This is considered more in the discussion chapter. External validity refers to the degree of generalisability of the research findings to the wider population. Given that the methodology for this research was comprehensive, conducting research in the wider population would be practicable. However, given the context and age group that was the focus of this research, these variables would need to be considered in discussing the findings of other research that used the same methodology as in this research.

As will be shown in the subsequent two chapters (findings and discussion), the responses from participants were ‘layered’, that is to say that many participants gave similar responses so that codes and themes were generated relatively easily

151

because of their experiences and perceptions. For example, for the open item in the questionnaire that related to participants’ perception of the gender they thought to be involved in cyberbullying more, 72 out of the 211 responses used the term ‘bitch’ or ‘bitchy’. This meant that many participants gave the same or similar responses, which increased the validity to the measures used.

Lincoln and Guba (1985) suggested trustworthiness has four elements: credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability. Credibility relates to the confidence in the believability of the findings, which can be established through triangulation of data collection methods, internal consistency in findings and through participant validation (Shenton, 2004). In this research connections were made between the findings in the questionnaire and those in the interviews. The transcripts and case studies were sent to the interview participants to validate their accuracy of the descriptions they provided. All interviewees confirmed that they were an accurate reflection of their experiences.

Transferability is the extent to which the procedures used to collect and analyse data can be used in other research and if the findings are applicable to other contexts. This can be achieved through providing a detailed methodology, in which data collection and analysis procedures are clear, as was the case in this research (Lincoln and Guba, 1985). Dependability refers to whether the findings in the research are consistent and if the research could be repeated. This can be achieved through writing the methodology in detail, which has already been shown to be the case in this research. Confirmability relates to the extent to which the research findings are a reflection of participants and not the researcher (Shenton, 2004). The findings in this research were supported by the data and the

152

procedures used, including bracketing and audit trails to show how the data collection and analysis were carried out and how decisions were made.

Bracketing was a method used to demonstrate validity in the interviews and generating the case studies. This was because I did not discuss with participants my own preconceptions and thought about cyberbullying. Only in the discussion chapter did I link the experiences of the participants with how they related to other literature and external frameworks. Using accurate descriptions from participants increased the credibility and trustworthiness of the data. The process of bracketing (epoché) throughout the interview process ensured that the interviewer did not lead the participant according to the researcher’s own beliefs or understanding of cyberbullying. This also allowed participants to speak freely, in their own terms, thereby increasing the validity of the findings. In the analysis, links to the literature in terms of the theoretical frameworks, such as attribution theory and the academic understanding of cyberbullying, were made in order to demonstrate the validity of the findings.

It would have been beneficial to do follow-up interviews with the participants, as the initial interviews did not go as deep as I thought. I could have asked further questions such as ‘What do you think cyberbullying is and how do you think it should be defined?’ to gather more detailed information about their experiences before college and explore more about them as a person than their direct involvement with cyberbullying. This was recognised as a limitation in the conclusions chapter.

153